Motus Excitationis, such as the new property which is given to iron by the magnet without any loss of power by the latter.
Motus Fugæ, such as “the repulsion of electrified pith balls; also of the similar poles of two magnets. In the latter case, all the force of a strong man has proved insufficient to make the two north poles touch each other.”
The last-named work of Sir John Herschel is alluded to, under the heading of “Prerogative Instances” (“Prærogativæ Instantiarum”) by Thomas Fowler, who calls attention to the fact that among the contemporaries of Francis Bacon by whom the Copernican theory was rejected are: Tycho Brahé (who, however—having died in 1601—did not live to become acquainted with the discoveries of Galileo); Vieta, the greatest mathematician of the sixteenth century (who died as early as 1603); Christopher Clavius (who was employed by Gregory XIII to reform the Calendar and was called the Euclid of his age); and possibly, from his silence, the famous mechanician Stevinus (Delambre, “Histoire de l’Astronomie Moderne”).
References.—The works of Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, by Basil Montagu, 16 vols., London, 1825–1834, and the review thereof made by Thomas Babington Macaulay (“Essays,” 1855, Vol. II. pp. 142–254 (“Edinburgh Review,” July 1837); Dr. W. Windelbrand, “History of Philosophy,” New York, 1893, translated by Jas. H. Tufts, pp. 380–388; Dr. Friedrich Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy,” translated by Geo. S. Morris, New York, 1885, Vol. II. pp. 33–38; Leopold Von Ranke, “History of England,” Vol. I. pp. 455–459, Vol. III. p. 383; William Whewell, “The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences,” London 1840, Vol. II. pp. 388–413; “Critical Dictionary of English Literature,” S. Austin Allibone, Philad. 1888, Vol. I. pp. 89–96; “Catalogue Général des livres imprimés de la Bibliot. Nation.,” Paris, 1901, Vol. VI. pp. 236–253; Chas. Wells Moulton, “Library of Literary Criticism,” Vol. I. pp. 638–669; “The Philosophical Works of Francis Bacon,” by John M. Robertson, New York, 1905; “The Grammar of Science,” by Karl Pearson, London, 1900, pp. 506–508; “Encycl. Britann.,” Edinburgh, 1842, seventh edition, Vol. I. as per Index pages 16–17 and at “Dissertation First,” pp. 32–40; “Essai Theorique ... des connaissances humaines,” par G. Tiberghien, Bruxelles, 1844, Vol. II. pp. 409–419; Geo Miller, “History Philosophically Illustrated,” London, 1849, Vol. II. p. 430; “Francis Bacon,” by B. G. Lovejoy, London, 1888; “His Life and Character,” pp. 1–188, and “His Essays and Extracts,” pp. 19–277; “Francis Bacon,” by Kuno Fisher, London, 1857; “Encycl. Brit.” ninth edition, Vol. III. pp. 200–218; Bacon’s “Novum Organum,” by Thomas Fowler, New York, 1881, and Oxford, 1889; “Histoire des Sciences,” par F. L. M. Maupied, Paris, 1847, Vol. II. pp. 252–281, for “Enumeration Méthodique—Eléments—Analyse—des ouvrages de Francis Bacon”; “Library of Useful Knowledge,” for account of Lord Bacon’s “Novum Organum”; “Epitome of Electricity and Galvanism,” Philad., 1809, pp. xvi, 105; Whewell, “History of the Inductive Sciences,” Vol. I. pp. 339, 385, 494, 530; Van Swinden, “Recueil de Mémoires ...” La Haye, 1784, Vol. II. pp. 355, 364, 369–370; and, for an exhaustive biographical account of Francis Bacon, consult the “English Cyclopædia,” Vol. I. pp. 470–476. It is stated by C. R. Weld in his “History,” Vol. I. p. 64, that the establishment of the Royal Society was much accelerated by the writings of Lord Bacon (Buchmeri, “Acad. Nat. curi. Hist.”).
A.D. 1620–1655.—Bergerac (Savinien Cyrano de), a very witty French writer, is the author of a fragment on physics, as well as of a curious philosophical romance, “Histoire comique des états et empires de la lune,” a translation from which latter is here given, as in a measure suggesting the phonograph: “On opening the box, I found a number of metallic springs and a quantity of machinery resembling the interior of our clocks. It was, in truth, to me a book, indeed, a miraculous book, for it had neither leaves nor characters, and to read it, one had no need of eyes, the ears alone answering the purpose. It was only necessary to start the little machine, whence would soon come all the distinct and different sounds common to the human voice.”
Another translation reads as follows: “On opening the box I found inside a concern of metal, something like one of our watches, full of curious little springs and minute machinery. It was really a book, but a wonderful book that has no leaves or letters; a book, for the understanding of which the eyes are of no use—only the ears are necessary. When any one wishes to read, he winds up the machine with its great number of nerves of all kinds, and turns the pointer to the chapter he wishes to hear, when there come out, as if from the mouth of a man or of an instrument of music, the distinct and various sounds which serve the Great Lunarians as the expression of language.”
As has been said by one of his biographers, “amid the extravagance of some of his works, Bergerac nevertheless exhibited a pretty good acquaintance with the philosophy of Descartes.”
References.—Article “Aeronautics” in the “Encycl. Brit.,” 1853, Vol. II. p. 168; Larousse, “Dict.,” Vol. V. p. 730.
A.D. 1621.—Helmont (Jean Baptiste van), famous Belgian scientist, publishes in Paris his “De Magnetica,” etc. (on the magnetic cure of wounds). His theories on magnetism greatly resemble those of Paracelsus, but in his treatment of them he shows himself much superior to the Swiss alchemist, whom Dr. Hœfer says he took as his model. “Magnetism,” Van Helmont observes, “is an unknown property of a heavenly nature, very much resembling the stars, and not at all impeded by any boundaries of space or time.... Every created being possesses his own celestial power and is closely allied with heaven ... the spirit is everywhere diffused; and the spirit is the medium of magnetism ... it is not the spirits of heaven and of hell which are masters over physical nature, but the soul and spirit of man which are concealed in him as the fire is concealed in the flint.”
The above-named work of Van Helmont was “translated, illustrated and ampliated,” in 1650 by Dr. Walter Charleton, physician in ordinary to King Charles I, under the name of “A Ternary of Paradoxes.” From its interesting contents, we make the following extracts: